Stair and the Inleydinge of Grotius

Research output: Contribution to journalArticle

Abstract

Grotius' Inleydinge (1631) is generally considered not to have been consulted by Stair on the assumption that Stair probably could not read Dutch. This paper shows that, on the contrary, there is a good chance that Stair had some understanding of Dutch by 1693, when the second edition of the Institutions (1681) was printed. Additionally, copies were available both in Scotland and in Leyden, where Stair spent six years in exile. This paper re-evaluates whether Stair relied upon the Inleydinge through a direct textual comparison of the discussions of the law of obligations in the Institutions and the Inleydinge. This shows that there are no compelling examples which demonstrate that Stair borrowed from the Inleydinge when writing or later editing the Institutions. This paper therefore shows that modern scholarship has been correct to dismiss the Inleydinge as a source for the Institutions, but for the wrong reasons.
Original languageEnglish
Pages (from-to)259-268
Number of pages10
JournalEdinburgh Law Review
Volume14
Issue number2
DOIs
Publication statusPublished - May 2010

Fingerprint

Hugo Grotius
Obligation
Editing
Exile
Scotland

Cite this

Stair and the Inleydinge of Grotius. / Wilson, Adelyn L M.

In: Edinburgh Law Review, Vol. 14, No. 2, 05.2010, p. 259-268.

Research output: Contribution to journalArticle

@article{189e1413c15f4331ae22225f8438e0ce,
title = "Stair and the Inleydinge of Grotius",
abstract = "Grotius' Inleydinge (1631) is generally considered not to have been consulted by Stair on the assumption that Stair probably could not read Dutch. This paper shows that, on the contrary, there is a good chance that Stair had some understanding of Dutch by 1693, when the second edition of the Institutions (1681) was printed. Additionally, copies were available both in Scotland and in Leyden, where Stair spent six years in exile. This paper re-evaluates whether Stair relied upon the Inleydinge through a direct textual comparison of the discussions of the law of obligations in the Institutions and the Inleydinge. This shows that there are no compelling examples which demonstrate that Stair borrowed from the Inleydinge when writing or later editing the Institutions. This paper therefore shows that modern scholarship has been correct to dismiss the Inleydinge as a source for the Institutions, but for the wrong reasons.",
author = "Wilson, {Adelyn L M}",
year = "2010",
month = "5",
doi = "10.3366/elr.2010.0006",
language = "English",
volume = "14",
pages = "259--268",
journal = "Edinburgh Law Review",
issn = "1364-9809",
number = "2",

}

TY - JOUR

T1 - Stair and the Inleydinge of Grotius

AU - Wilson, Adelyn L M

PY - 2010/5

Y1 - 2010/5

N2 - Grotius' Inleydinge (1631) is generally considered not to have been consulted by Stair on the assumption that Stair probably could not read Dutch. This paper shows that, on the contrary, there is a good chance that Stair had some understanding of Dutch by 1693, when the second edition of the Institutions (1681) was printed. Additionally, copies were available both in Scotland and in Leyden, where Stair spent six years in exile. This paper re-evaluates whether Stair relied upon the Inleydinge through a direct textual comparison of the discussions of the law of obligations in the Institutions and the Inleydinge. This shows that there are no compelling examples which demonstrate that Stair borrowed from the Inleydinge when writing or later editing the Institutions. This paper therefore shows that modern scholarship has been correct to dismiss the Inleydinge as a source for the Institutions, but for the wrong reasons.

AB - Grotius' Inleydinge (1631) is generally considered not to have been consulted by Stair on the assumption that Stair probably could not read Dutch. This paper shows that, on the contrary, there is a good chance that Stair had some understanding of Dutch by 1693, when the second edition of the Institutions (1681) was printed. Additionally, copies were available both in Scotland and in Leyden, where Stair spent six years in exile. This paper re-evaluates whether Stair relied upon the Inleydinge through a direct textual comparison of the discussions of the law of obligations in the Institutions and the Inleydinge. This shows that there are no compelling examples which demonstrate that Stair borrowed from the Inleydinge when writing or later editing the Institutions. This paper therefore shows that modern scholarship has been correct to dismiss the Inleydinge as a source for the Institutions, but for the wrong reasons.

U2 - 10.3366/elr.2010.0006

DO - 10.3366/elr.2010.0006

M3 - Article

VL - 14

SP - 259

EP - 268

JO - Edinburgh Law Review

JF - Edinburgh Law Review

SN - 1364-9809

IS - 2

ER -